- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Tacitus: A Reliable Reference to Jesus
Tacitus was a Roman historian writing early in the 2nd century A.D. His Annals provide us with a single reference to Jesus of considerable value. Here is a full quote of the cite of our concern, from Annals 15.44. Jesus and the Christians are mentioned in an account of how the Emperor Nero went after Christians in order to draw attention away from himself after Rome's fire of 64 AD:
But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.
This reference provides definitive evidence for the existence of Jesus, for Tacitus moust be taken seriously as a historian. The literature of Tacitean scholars is full of praise for the accuracy, care, critical capability, and trustworthiness of the work of Tacitus. For example:
• Syme, who was regarded as one of the foremost Tacitean scholars, says "the prime quality of Cornelius Tacitus is distrust. It was needed if a man were to write about the Caesars." He adds that Tacitus "was no stranger to industrious investigation" and his "diligence was exemplary."
• Chilver indicates that "for Tacitus scepticism was inescapable is not to be doubted."
• Martin though noting difficulties about discerning Tacitus' exact sources, says that "It is clear, then, that Tacitus read widely and that the idea that he was an uncritical follower of a single source is quite untenable."
• Grant, while charging Tacitus with bias, error, and "unfair selectivity" in various areas (especially associated with the Emperor Tiberius), nevertheless agrees that Tacitus "was careful to contrast what had been handed down orally with the literary tradition." Elsewhere he notes that "There is no doubt that (Tacitus) took a great deal of care in selecting his material."
• Dudley notes that despite problems in discerning what sources Tacitus used, "it may be said with some confidence that the view that Tacitus followed a single authority no longer commands support."
• Mellor observes that although he made use of other sources, including friends like Pliny, Tacitus "does not slavishly follow, as some of his Roman predecessors did, the vagaries of his sources." He adds that, "If research is the consultation and evaluation of sources, there can be little doubt that Tacitus engaged in serious research though it is not often apparent in the smooth flow of his narrative." Tacitus "consulted both obscure and obvious sources," and "distinguishes fact from rumor with a scrupulosity rare in any ancient historian."
• Benario tells us that Tacitus "chose judiciously among his sources, totally dependent upon none, and very often, at crucial points, ignored the consensus of his predecessors to impose his own viewpoint and his own judgment."
• Wellesley remarks that investigation "very seldom shows (Tacitus) to be false to fact" and that archaeology has shown that "only once or twice is Tacitus found guilty of a small slip." He adds: "When the sources differ and the truth is hard to decipher, (Tacitus) takes refuge in ambiguous language or the balance of alternative and sometimes spiteful variants," rather than doing original research to determine which option is the truth. We may note that there is no such ambiguous language in Annals 15.44.
• Finally, Momigliano, while pointing out that Tacitus was of course "not a researcher in the modern sense," nevertheless says that he was "a writer whose reliability cannot be seriously questioned." He cites only one possible major error by Tacitus, but puts it down to him relying on a trusted predecessor rather than official records.
It will not do to beg for an exception and say that Tacitus just happened to become careless as a historian when it came to reporting about Jesus. It would be the burden of any doubter to explain why Tacitus’ testimony is not solid evidence of Jesus’ existence.
I will address a few of the more common objections to Tacitus’ testimony in the next arguments.
Comments
Jesus is definately an historical figure.
Jesus is definately an historical figure, whether he lived as a human or not. Who can ever prove one way or another if a person existed. Was there ever a boy who cried wolf when there wasn't one? But Jesus first exists as a character in the book called the gospel . And further Jesus exists in the hearts of millions of people who let the teachings attributed to Him guide their daily lives. Sure there are many who have acted against his teachings and claimed to be his followers, but Jesus predicted this himself and said "I will say to them depart from me for I knew you not" and " Not all who say Lord Lord shall enter into the kingdom of heaven but those who do the will of my Father whjo is in heaven".
The fact that for thousands of years (measured in relation to his purported birth) that birth day has been celebrated around the world further prove he is an historical figure. And yes Virginia so is Santa Claus.
The first Reform Jew?
If we separate Jesus from Christian theology, the historic Jesus was a Jew speaking to other Jews. Could it be that what he was trying to do was found Reform Judaism?
Actually...
...it is total untrue that Tacitus is considered to be reliable. The passage you refer to is a forgery and there is little other evidence to support the claim that Nero persecuted Christians. To quote the editor of Eusebius's The History of the Church: "Up to the persecution under the Emperor Decius (250-51) there had been no persecution of Christians ordered by the Emperor on an imperial scale."
Usually Reliable?
Definitive evidence, J.P.? I can't go along with that. It doesn't hurt. But it doesn't close the case. Let's agree he's generally reliable. He's generally good about his sources. He's credible generally. Great. But it's not as if events never deviate from the norm.
You know, most 1st century Palestinians weren't crucified. In fact the percentage that were is exceedingly small. Maybe 1 person in 10,000. Is this definitive proof that Jesus wasn't crucified? It would be an exceptional deviation from the norm.
I will stick with "definitive"
I will stick with “definitive” as Tacitus is more than “generally” reliable; he is considered to be unusually, if not exceptionally, reliable. Those who argue for a deviancy from a norm must argue it, not simply suppose it to be possible.
You shouldn't
"Those who argue for a deviancy from a norm must argue it, not simply suppose it to be possible."
Of course. That's what Zindler is doing. If we had only one piece of data, and that was the Tacitus quote, and we had nothing else (no gospels, no Josephus interpolation, nothing from Paul), and we thought the Tacitus quote was genuine, we'd probably say it's more likely than not that Jesus existed. But if we look at the additional data and find that it points towards the non-existence of the historical Jesus, we go with it, because the Tacitus quote is not definitive.
Tacitus is "unusually, if not exceptionally reliable"
This being the case, it makes the uncharacteristic error regarding the rank of Pilate stand out all the more. (See my comment to your fudging the data with procurator/prefect.)
Interpolations tend to stand out for what they say for themselves rather than what they contribute to the context. This is the case with the second part of A. 15.44. Previously Tacitus had carefully constructed an attack on Nero based on his manipulation of the evidence available. Interestingly he cannot say outright that Nero was responsible for the fire, so he leaves it to the fact that everyone suspected that he was and no matter what he did he couldn't shake that opinion. Then, suddenly we get the story of crispy crackly christians burning into the night in a glorious martyrdom which made even an unfriendly populace feel sympathy for them.
This whole passage undercuts Tacitus's efforts to vilify Nero, for it takes focus away from Nero's probable acts and unaccountably switches to naughty christians.
While crispy crackly christians is over the top for a Tacitus, the whole affair is significantly missing from Suetonius, who was much more in favor of the crispy crackly approach to the past. (And arguments from silence have a certain value, when the expected is not there.)
As the passage was not part of Tacitus's hatchet job on Nero, one would expect it to have been placed before he concluded his dealings with Nero on the fire in 15.44.1-2a, in order to sell his ideas about the ruler and not bury them.
The christ passage in 15.44 doesn't contribute to the context in which it is found. It actually interferes with it.
Little more than an imaginative construct
There was no “fudging” on the procurator/prefect issue. The response I gave is that of credentialed historians. It is clear that you simply cannot respond to such authorities on their own terms.
The remainder of your commentary is little more than an imaginative construct. It perhaps does not occur to you – as it would to professional historians who have made Tacitus their life study – that Tacitus’ qualified assessment of Nero’s involvement in the fire reflects his characteristic care as a historian, in which he refuses to make judgments based on inadequate information and simply leaves it to the reader to decide.
In short, your contrived scenario makes it conveniently impossible for Tacitus to report such a judgment, because you have already assumed that he will only be trying to vilify Nero. So what is Tacitus supposed to do if indeed the origins of the fire were uncertain? Lie about it, so that he can satisfy your pre-determined categorical profession that his sole purpose is to vilify Nero? Are you going to argue next that Tactius could not report wrongdoing or blame to anyone else at all, because he was so obsessed with finding ways to vilify Nero?
As for things being missing from Suetonius: That is an argument from silence indeed, and of no value whatsoever. Compare Suetonius’ account of Nero’s reign with that of Tacitus’ account and tell me that they match in all respect save that one; then you will have a case. As it is, you are once again merely creating arbitrary categorical distinctions.
In addition, would you mind explaining why “crispy crackly christians is over the top for a Tacitus”? What would you rank as the three events Tacitus reports which would otherwise rank closest to “over the top” for him, and why? (Or is this simply another of your contrived arguments?)
Your comment re the placement of the passage “in order to sell his ideas about the ruler and not bury them” makes no sense whatsoever and is not explained in terms of the structure of Annals 15. Nor do you explain how the passage “doesn't contribute to the context in which it is found” or “interferes with it.” I will therefore assume that you are simply making up this argument out of thin air and do not have the ability to justify it.
Holding tight for an anticlimax
If Mr Holding understood the notion of appeal to authority, he would deal with the arguments of those authorities rather than simply continuing to appeal. But this is an exercise in apologetics: authority means he doesn't have to get confused with facts.
Perhaps had Mr Holding read some of the authorities on Tacitus and his descriptions of the Roman emperors, he might find that Tacitus was far from refusing to make judgments on them. He was merely indirect in the statement of his judgments. A good analysis of the issue is Inez Scott Ryberg, "Tacitus' Art of Innuendo", Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol.73 (1942), pp.384-404. He might get the flavor of Tacitus' approach by actually reading a few pages of the old Roman senator.
The fact that Suetonius doesn't mention the passage is surprising on a number of fronts: it is Suetonius who prefers more salacious materials rather than Tacitus, Suetonius had a position which gave him access to city records and yet doesn't admit to knowing about the christian connection to the fire, and he is the first of a long line of ancient writers who were apparently oblivious to that connection, including several knowledgeable christian fathers.
I'm impressed by Mr Holding's inability to understand my comments about the placement of the passage on the Neronian persecution. It is a simple matter: Tacitus is doing a hatchet job on Nero regarding the fire (and please refer to your authority for help there). He starts his discussion of the fire in A.15.38 with an aspersion, "A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain". It is possible that Nero was the cause of the fire. He sums up this issue in 15.44, "But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order." The aim is to leave the reader with the notion that it is obvious that Nero was the cause. However with the current text, the reader isn't left with the last thought on the fire being that Nero couldn't shake the accusations, but a totally different issue, that of the persecution of the christians. This christian "anticlimax" undercuts and diffuses the whole careful attack on Nero.
As to Mr Holding's last comment, "I will therefore assume that you are simply making up this argument out of thin air and do not have the ability to justify it", the apologist may assume whatever he likes in order to further his cause. This is not so much a reflection of what he is making assumptions about, as of his efforts to win an argument regardless of content.
Mr Holding certainly can cite names of authorities he has collected in the decades of his apologetic activities, but shows little interest in what those authorities actually talk about and little desire to understand the primary sources or how an ancient writer such as Tacitus goes about unveiling his agenda.
Mr. spin reaches his climax in a valley
Despite mr. spin, I do understand what “appeal to authority” is, and why he has misapprehended it in this case. Like Mr. Zindler, he fails to realize that he is in essence asking us to accept HIS authority over that of Tacitean scholars. In the end it remains an admission on his part that he is ill-prepared to deal with the issues, much less use those authorities to his advantage.
Re the appeal to Ryberg. I said nothing to suggest that Tacitus was “far from refusing to make judgments” on emperors; it seems that mr. spin cannot answer my real arguments, so he instead creates one for me that I did not make, since that is easier to refute.
Regarding Suetonius, I note that my question asking for comparisons of content remains completely unanswered, and thus is a tacit admission by mr. spin that he cannot justify his argument that there is anything unusual in the variability of accounts. Mr. spin vaguely appeals to Suetonius liking “more salacious materials” but what is “salacious” about a particular group being falsely accused of starting a fire is hard to say, especially when compared with the lurid atrocities performed by Nero at the same time. Not only so, but mr. spin doesn’t even bother to justify, by record, Suetonius’ alleged “preferences” in this regard or their specific nature, so I will assume he is simply making this up put of his hat.
Mr. spin also vaguely appeals to “access to city records,” for what purpose is far from clear, since it doesn’t seem likely that Nero’s gossip accusing Christians of starting the fire would be documented in “city records.” Perhaps mr. spin also thinks he can find copies of “Guiding Light” in his local city hall as well. We remain unenlightened in terms of why this is a meaningful silence in any writer, beyond “mr. spin says so.”
In terms of placement of the passage, I understood very well that this was simply yet another case of mr. spin blowing smoke and flashing mirrors. He clearly had no actual explanation to start with, and his present attempt at explanation reaches new heights of logical incoherence. That the “aim is to leave the reader with the notion that it is obvious that Nero was the cause” is not in any sense reduced by the recording of a false accusation by Nero against Christians; if anything, it fits right in with a picture of Nero as a party trying to evade responsibility. Why mr. spin thinks it necessary for something else to be the “last thought,” in order for Nero to remain a bad guy, is hard to say, but it seems likely that he couldn’t strain out a better explanation in order to preserve his contrived thesis. Bottom line: There is no “christian anticlimax” save in mr. spin’s imagination, just as I predicted.
In close, note well that mr. spin is clearly out of his league in confronting the claims of the “authorities” he so readily dismisses (in favor of his own unknown “authority”). I strongly suspect that he has never read any of their words, not even Ryberg’s, and merely collected that reference out of some library database he rushed to in a panic when he found that his arguments based on a plan English reading would not simply be accepted uncritically here by a bamboozled audience. In any event, not one such authority thinks that Tacitus did not author the full text of Annals 15.44.
Holding no bars
There is no pleasing Mr Holding. He refuses to consult the original text, preferring to rely on appeals to authority. When one supplies even one reference for him to read, specifically on the issue of how Tacitus indirectly develops his criticism of his subjects, Mr Holding denies the value of secondary sources. No, wait, that's not correct: he doesn't really mind appeals to secondary sources. He simply claims that I haven't read mine, so that he doesn't need to either. He has dug his hole of appeal to authority and now he is trying to claw his way out with a no-holds-barred "it's not me appealing to authority, it's you" argument, while finishing his argument with "not one such authority thinks that Tacitus did not author the full text of Annals 15.44". One cannot take this gormlessness seriously.
Ryberg, in the article I cited, deals with Tacitus' technique, saying "It is by various devices of his style that Tacitus was able to make good his claim of writing, in the accepted historical tradition, sine ira et studio [=impartially], and yet to leave etched on the reader's mind an ineradicable impression of tyranny and oppression..." She is dealing with what Tacitus says about Tiberius, but the technique reflects the author rather than the subject. Tacitus avoids "direct accusations of crime": he "stops short of a direct charge, and yet spares the emperor nothing of the burden of guilt." (Ryberg, op.cit. p.384.)
A grasp of how Tacitus proceeded is essential to understanding the passage we are considering. Mr Holding would like readers to believe that the fanciful description of the persecution of christians tacked onto the end of the historian's masterful attack on Nero -- a description that takes the reader's mind off Nero while still dealing with the fire he has indicted Nero for --, was actually written by Tacitus. Unwilling to accept that Tacitus knew what he was doing in his proceeding against Nero, Mr Holding has no problem with one of the most highly reputed orators of his time fumbling his finish. Even Mr Holding likes a big finish: "In any event, not one such authority thinks that Tacitus did not author the full text of Annals 15.44." This is little league acknowledging the big league of course, but it's a big finish for Mr Holding (no bars held).
Mr Holding has difficulties with my referring to the lusty descriptions of the treatment of the christian martyrs as "salacious materials", being torn apart by dogs or lighting up the night sky, stuff that mightn't be expected from the taciturn Tacitus but juice for Suetonius, or, better, for martyr-story hungry christians. I take this as a complaint about my use of "salacious" and I thank Mr Holding for his efforts at improving my writing technique.
Ryberg describes Tacitus as stopping short of a direct criminal charges, but here in 15.44 Mr Holding accepts that he does make a charge: "a false accusation by Nero against Christians". If we are to trust Ryberg's analysis, this is out of character for Tacitus.
Mr Holding seems unable to do anything other than to appeal to authority, and fill in the spaces with banter. I would much prefer him to consider the text for once and show that he understands the issues the text implies.
A Fresh Look At Old Spin
In returning to consider mr spin's nonsense some two years later, it strikes the reader mainly how little substance he offers, disguised as it is with excess verbiage and well versed in the art of contrived necessity. After babbling incoherently for a couple of paragraphs about appeal to authority, he assumes us that "[a] grasp of how Tacitus proceeded is essential to understanding the passage we are considering" and has some idea that the segue towards Jesus in 15.44 somehow "takes the reader's mind off Nero...' I can only say that it would take a mind severely afflicted by attention deficit disorder to be so distracted by Tacitus' side reference to Jesus that it would require describing Tacitus; effort here as "fumbling". But perhaps in so saying, I have well described mr spin's own mental condition and uncovered the reason for his uncharitable assessment of Tacitus.
It is said, "If we are to trust Ryberg's analysis, this is out of character for Tacitus.' Unfortunately, an explanation of how this is the case seems to be lacking. A "false accusation" is not a crime , merely a moral lapse.
So it is. After all this time, mr spin continues to amuse with his pomposity.
Left Holding the Bundle
After a hiatus of two years, Mr Holding has returned to this discussion feeling the necessity to comment thus: "nonsense"... "excess verbiage"... "contrived necessity"... "mind severely afflicted by attention deficit disorder to be so distracted"... "mental condition"... "moral lapse"... "amuse with his pomposity". Quite a concentrated effort at spite, considering the rest of the comment seems to have no content at all.
Mr Holding says, based on my post "Holding no bars" above: 'It is said, "If we are to trust Ryberg's analysis, this is out of character for Tacitus.' Unfortunately, an explanation of how this is the case seems to be lacking.'
It's a shame that Mr Holding didn't learn much from the earlier part of that post which did in fact supply the missed explanation. The missed explanation he describes here as "babbling incoherently for a couple of paragraphs about appeal to authority." Mr Holding of course didn't think that this was worthy of comment two years ago when his attention was more focused on the discussion. Two years ago he attempted rather to accuse me of "pluck[ing] Ryberg’s name from a Google search he did and never actually read[ing] the article in question". I guess that's what he's familiar with doing.
What Mr Holding seems unable do grasp in reading the text of Tacitus is that 15.44 is not as he claims here "Tacitus' side reference to Jesus". This is a concise witness to Jesus, placed in the text where its impact diminished Tacitus's general argument against Nero. OK, so Mr Holding has no interest in Tacitus or what he is actually doing. He is merely interested in the witness value and cares not at all for the context. That's why he doesn't understand the issues.
* He doesn't care about the famed style of Tacitus and how this is not reflected in 15.44.
* He doesn't know about what Tacitus has shown to know, ie that procurators weren't used to govern provinces until the time of Claudius.
* He is oblivious to the fact that this is fundamentally a martyrdom story (including the pity for the martyrs from passers by).
* He finds no problem in the fact that this story intrudes into Tacitus's polemic against Nero to the detriment of that polemic.
Of course there are more difficulties with the insertion of the martyrdom story into Annals 15.44 and if Mr Holding is interested, I can continue.
I won't comment on Mr Holding's "mental state": it's too hard to glean over internet . Or the afflictions of his mind. But I don't think there is any justification for the bundle of insults he summoned up this two years on. I won't accept them. I'll just leave him holding the bundle and I'll hope next time, if there is a next time, that he'll show a little decorum.
Spinning from a hole
Yes, it is rather impossible for one ill-educated in the practices of research, like mr. spin, to please one such as myself who holds a professional degree in the field of research. He needs to do more than merely supply a reference; he needs to apply it, here and now – for otherwise, he raises the suspicion of true “argument from authority” which consists of merely flashing a name and pretending that this by itself is an argument. Thus he validates my point that he merely plucked Ryberg’s name from a Google search he did and never actually read the article in question until called down for it now, much less has he understood any way in which it could be applied to the current question.
And his further comment indicates this as well. First, his claim that “the technique reflects the author rather than the subject” is a counsel of despair, his own conclusion added to the mix and not at all substantiated. Second, he fails to note that in Annals 15.44, Tacitus makes no direct accusation at all, but rather records what Nero accused Christians of – and he says Nero did so falsely. Hence Ryberg’s comments are not even close to germane to what mr. spin is so vainly trying to argue. Please note that this is a frequent occurrence respecting those who have no practice or skills in the fields of research and argumentation. Mr. spin obviously saw the key words “accusation” and “crime” and concluded thereby that whatever was said must be immediately relevant.
In any event, thus we see that mr spin is no authority to say “how Tacitus proceeded” on anything, not even on how Tacitus proceeded to don his toga every morning. His idea that the description “takes the reader's mind off Nero” may be true for minds not able to concentrate, but in any event, it is rather odd as an appeal, since if we permit mr. spin his fancy, Tacitus immediately after reporting all of this goes in to “take the reader’s mind off Nero” by reporting on mundane economic matters:
“Meanwhile Italy was thoroughly exhausted by contributions of money, the provinces were ruined, as also the allied nations and the free states, as they were called. Even the gods fell victims to the plunder; for the temples in Rome were despoiled and the gold carried off, which, for a triumph or a vow, the Roman people in every age had consecrated in their prosperity or their alarm.”
Oops. Did Tacitus forget that he was wanting to vilify Nero? He doesn’t get back to Nero for the next several sentences. That’s an awful lot of space to stop talking about him – nearly as much as, oh, Annals 15.44. And a little later there’s a major break for commentaries on some gladiators. Maybe Tacitus was taking a break from the news to do the sports report?
And so, there is nothing to suggest “fumbling his finish” save mr. spin’s rules for oration invented on the spot.
Finally, in regards to dogs and fires, and salacious material, it would be Nero, not Tacitus, who had a fondness for such things; mr. spin apparently does not see any way for someone like Tacitus to objectively report such occurrences, which in fact, he does report here in a most taciturn manner.
We will wait for mr. spin to consider the text, and his authorities, more carefully next time.
Holding out
Isn't it nice for a change to see Mr Holding attempting to deal with the issues rather than the incessant babbling of names? We can breeze past his insults based on ignorance: he tries to claim that I'm imitating him in his first paragraph, but I don't appeal to authority and I've read Ryberg. He hasn't, yet thinks he can pretend to know what she is talking about, because that's what experts seem to do. Let me help the expert. Here is Ryberg again:
"The most striking instance [of innuendo regarding Nero] is the account of the fire of 64 A.D., which Suetonius does not hesitate to ascribe to the deliberate command of Nero. Tacitus leaves the reader with no less vivid impression of Nero's guilt, but he achieves this without stating his own judgment on the question." (op.cit. p.399f.)
She goes on to substantiate the view she expounds here. Ryberg was talking about the use of innuendo by Tacitus -- not just regarding Tiberius --, and Mr Holding would know that if he'd read the article. I can cite as much of the article as Mr Holding would like, barring copyright issues, if it will acquaint him with the material.
Mr Holding is making heavy weather understanding the methodology in the attack on Nero by Tacitus. The historian writes a passage about the fire, starting with the gossip that Nero may have been responsible and describes the fire and all the relevant facts he seems to be acquainted with ending with the fact that no matter what Nero did he was unable to shake the accusation that he was responsible. End of the fire story. He is able to go on to new events, having left a hatchet between Nero's shoulders.
The martyriologically pleasing crispy crackly christian story, if genuine, Tacitus would have placed advantageously before his final twist of the hatchet in Nero's back, as he does with the construction of the enormous Domus Aurea (which replaced his Domus Transitoria burnt down in the fire) and the reconstruction of Rome, see 15.42f, so as not to spoil the savor of the last morsel before going on to the next course.
Mr Holding says, "Tacitus makes no direct accusation at all, but rather records what Nero accused Christians of – and he says Nero did so falsely." I gather Tacitus saying that Nero made a false charge against christians is not a direct accusation in itself. I really need a rolling-eyes smilie for this ineptitude.
Mr Holding, still talking through his hat, says: "Finally, in regards to dogs and fires, and salacious material, it would be Nero, not Tacitus, who had a fondness for such things". Actually Nero was fond of acting and chariot racing. What evidence does he have that Nero "had a fondness for such things"? (Oh, I forgot, Mr Holding doesn't do evidence. Perhaps a page number?)
It should be obvious why Mr Holding prefers to stick with appeals to authority. What we see in this response is Mr Holding out for the count.